Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendant committed crimes in Kansas in February 2016 and later pled guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. At sentencing, the presentence investigation report counted a prior Illinois conviction for aggravated discharge of a firearm as a person felony, which affected the defendant’s criminal history score and sentence. The defendant objected, arguing that the Illinois law on third-party liability was broader than Kansas law and that this should preclude the Illinois conviction from being counted as a person felony under Kansas law.The Saline District Court rejected the defendant’s argument and classified the Illinois conviction as a person felony, holding that the proper inquiry was whether the elements of the Illinois offense were comparable to a Kansas person felony, not whether the theory of liability in Illinois was broader. The defendant was sentenced accordingly and appealed. The Kansas Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the district court, reasoning that neither state treats third-party liability as a separate crime and that the conviction itself, not the underlying theory of liability, should be compared. The panel found the Illinois aggravated discharge statute was at least as narrow as, if not narrower than, the comparable Kansas statute.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals and the district court. The court held that, for crimes committed before May 23, 2019, the proper method is to compare the elements of the out-of-state offense with the Kansas offense. The court concluded that the Illinois crime of aggravated discharge of a firearm is comparable to Kansas’ criminal discharge of a firearm and should be classified as a person offense. The court further held that sentencing courts are not required to consider theories of liability, such as aiding and abetting, when conducting this comparability analysis. View "State v. McCray " on Justia Law

In the early morning of May 27, 2021, Aaron Shepherd and his wife, Megan, were collecting scrap metal in Topeka when they encountered a Chevy Trailblazer driven by Brandon Croskey, with Jeremy Volle as a passenger. After a confrontation at a car wash, Croskey called Volle for backup. The SUV chased Shepherd’s car, and during the pursuit, Shepherd exited his vehicle. A single gunshot fired from the Trailblazer struck Shepherd, who later died. Investigation and witness statements led police to Croskey and Volle. Croskey identified Volle as the shooter, while Volle claimed Croskey fired the shot. The State charged Volle with criminal possession of a weapon, first-degree felony murder, and premeditated murder, with the felony-murder count predicated on criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle.The case was tried in the Shawnee District Court, where both Croskey and Volle testified, each implicating the other. Croskey had previously pleaded guilty to related charges and testified for the State. Volle was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, reckless second-degree murder (as a lesser included offense), and criminal possession of a firearm. Before sentencing, Volle moved to be sentenced for reckless second-degree murder, arguing it was more specific than felony murder. The district court denied the motion, merged the murder convictions, and sentenced Volle to life without parole for felony murder.On direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, Volle raised multiple trial and sentencing errors, including claims of improper evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence, and cumulative error. The Supreme Court of Kansas held that the search warrants and evidence suppression rulings were proper, the aiding and abetting instruction was factually appropriate, and there were no cumulative errors. The court affirmed that sufficient evidence supported Volle’s felony-murder conviction and ruled that sentencing for felony murder, not reckless second-degree murder, was correct. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Volle " on Justia Law

Kyle Romey was charged with the first-degree premeditated murder of his mother after her body was found with extensive blunt-force injuries in the trailer home they shared. On the morning of the incident, Romey went to his sister’s house, displayed signs of distress, and admitted to having “hurt Mama . . . bad.” Romey’s sister observed him using methamphetamine and drinking “bong water” before they returned to the trailer and discovered their mother’s body. Romey claimed to have blacked out and not remembered the killing. Police later arrested him; forensic evidence showed blood and DNA from both Romey and his mother on weapons found at the scene.The District Court of Sedgwick County excluded evidence of Romey’s post-arrest drug use, finding it irrelevant to his mental state at the time of the killing due to intervening drug consumption. The court instructed the jury on first-degree premeditated murder and lesser included offenses but denied Romey’s request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction, concluding there was no evidence of sufficient provocation. Romey was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for more than 54 years, based on a criminal-history score of A. He appealed directly to the Kansas Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the conviction, holding that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of premeditation and that the district court did not err in excluding evidence or refusing the manslaughter instruction. However, the court found that Romey’s criminal-history score was improperly calculated—certain convictions should not have been counted—requiring resentencing. The court also declined to consider Romey’s challenge to the calculation of jail credit because it was not properly preserved, but allowed for this issue to be addressed upon remand for resentencing. The conviction was affirmed, sentence vacated, and the case remanded with directions. View "State v. Romey " on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was charged with several violent offenses, including first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, stemming from incidents that took place over the course of about a year. The defendant entered into a plea agreement covering multiple cases, pleading guilty to first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, attempted second-degree murder, and criminal discharge of a firearm at occupied dwellings. In exchange, the State dismissed additional charges. Based on his criminal history and the plea agreement, the defendant faced a controlling sentence of 620 months for first-degree murder and 233 months for voluntary manslaughter, with these sentences to be served consecutively, while all other sentences would run concurrently.The Sedgwick County District Court accepted the plea, reviewed an expert report on the defendant’s drug abuse and mental health, and heard arguments regarding mitigating factors, including the defendant’s age and potential for reform. Despite these arguments, the district court imposed consecutive sentences for the first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter convictions, citing the presence of two victims as its rationale. The defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by not giving sufficient weight to mitigating factors and by failing to provide a detailed explanation for the consecutive sentences.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case for abuse of discretion. The court held that neither statute nor caselaw required the district court to consider mitigating factors or to provide a lengthy explanation for its sentencing decision. The court found that the district court’s brief statement—that there were two victims, each entitled to their own sentence—satisfied statutory requirements and was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or based on error. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. View "State v. Macormac " on Justia Law

A man was accused by his fiancée’s daughter, “Jane,” of sexually abusing her over several years, beginning when she was four years old. The allegations surfaced after Jane confided in a friend, leading to a criminal investigation. The investigation resulted in the discovery of web bookmarks with pornographic and incestuous titles on the man’s phone and computers. At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from Jane and others about sexual misconduct, as well as evidence of the bookmarks. The man denied the allegations, claiming Jane’s mother fabricated the accusations as part of a custody dispute.The Ellsworth District Court admitted the web bookmark evidence over the defense’s objection, finding it relevant to the charges requiring proof of sexual intent. The jury convicted the defendant on multiple counts, including aggravated criminal sodomy and related offenses. The district court sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole for 50 years, plus a consecutive term. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, upholding the admission of the web bookmarks and finding no prejudicial prosecutorial error or cumulative error.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case after granting further review. The court held that the web bookmark evidence was properly admitted because it was material and probative to the charged offenses, particularly those requiring proof of sexual intent. The court also found that a prosecutor’s “golden rule” argument during closing was error but deemed it harmless in light of the strong evidence against the defendant. The court further held that, even considering another harmless evidentiary error identified by the Court of Appeals, there was no cumulative error sufficient to deny the defendant a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed both the Court of Appeals’ and the district court’s judgments. View "State v. Cunningham " on Justia Law

After a late-night robbery in Topeka, Darren Johnson and an accomplice stole a car and fled the scene. Police officers were alerted and began searching for the suspects. Officer Scott spotted the stolen vehicle, activated his lights and sirens, and pursued Johnson, who accelerated and ran a red light to evade capture. After Officer Scott lost sight of the vehicle and turned off his lights and sirens, he continued driving in the same direction. Seconds later, another officer observed Johnson speeding before Johnson crashed into another vehicle, resulting in the death of a passenger in the stolen car.The State charged Johnson with felony murder, reckless second-degree murder, felony fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and aggravated robbery. The District Court of Shawnee County presided over the trial, where a jury convicted Johnson on all counts. At sentencing, the court merged the felony murder and reckless second-degree murder convictions and imposed a sentence of 25 years for felony murder, consecutive time for aggravated robbery, and other penalties, including restitution and attorney fees. Johnson appealed his convictions for felony murder and felony fleeing or attempting to elude, and the attorney fee order.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that the cessation of police lights and sirens during a chase does not, as a matter of law, end a police pursuit under the relevant statute; this is a fact question for the jury. The court found sufficient evidence supported both the felony fleeing or attempting to elude conviction and the underlying felony murder conviction. It ruled the failure to define “reckless driving” for the jury was not clearly erroneous and that “reckless driving” does not have a common meaning, requiring a definition. The court also affirmed the district court’s attorney fee order, concluding it was properly considered. Johnson’s convictions, sentence, and attorney fee order were affirmed. View "State v. Johnson " on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery after a 2014 home invasion. The prosecution's case largely depended on the testimony of three of the defendant’s coworkers, who described his role in the crime and recounted events before and after the incident. Physical evidence, including firearms and shell casings, was introduced at trial, but no physical evidence directly tied the defendant to the crime.After his conviction and unsuccessful direct appeal, the defendant filed a postconviction discovery motion requesting information to support a claim that a crime scene investigator (CSI) who had testified at trial had committed perjury in another proceeding. He argued that this alleged perjury was material and that the State’s failure to disclose it violated his rights under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. The Wyandotte District Court denied the motion, reasoning that the CSI’s testimony was not material to the conviction because the verdict rested on witness testimony, not physical evidence. A subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment was also denied, with the court concluding the defendant could have presented his new arguments in his original motion.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the district court’s decisions for abuse of discretion. The court held that the defendant failed to show the requested discovery could have affected the outcome of his trial, as required under the standard articulated in State v. Mundo-Parra. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion to alter or amend. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court’s rulings. View "State v. Butler " on Justia Law

Police responded to a domestic disturbance at a home shared by the defendant, his partner, and their children. During the incident, officers found a rifle in the living room. The defendant admitted ownership of the firearm and acknowledged he was on probation. Several months earlier, he had pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery, a conviction that, under Kansas law, prohibited him from possessing a firearm for five years. The defendant was charged with felony criminal use of a weapon for knowingly possessing a firearm within five years of his domestic violence conviction.In the Sedgwick District Court, the defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute prohibiting firearm possession by those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses violated the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted by a jury. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute was constitutional and that sufficient evidence supported the verdict.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case to address the Second Amendment challenge. The court held that the Kansas statute, which temporarily disarms individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses, is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court reasoned that early American laws, such as surety and “going armed” laws, allowed for the disarmament of individuals who posed a threat of violence, and that a recent conviction for domestic violence is sufficient to establish such a threat. The court concluded that the statute imposes a narrow, temporary restriction and is constitutional both on its face and as applied. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "State v. McCray " on Justia Law

Three masked individuals, including the defendant and his brother, forcibly entered an occupied apartment in Wichita where marijuana was sold. The intruders demanded money, drugs, and guns. During the attempted robbery, one resident fired a warning shot through a bedroom door after the intruders tried to break in. As the intruders retreated, the defendant, who was armed, fired several shots, killing one resident and injuring another. Surveillance footage and witness testimony identified the defendant and his brother as participants, and physical evidence linked the defendant’s firearm to the fatal shot.A jury in the Sedgwick District Court convicted the defendant of felony murder committed during an attempted aggravated robbery, as well as other related offenses. The jury found him guilty as both a principal and, alternatively, as an aider and abettor. The district court denied posttrial motions and sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the propriety of a jury instruction regarding criminal responsibility for the acts of another. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the felony-murder conviction, finding that the killing occurred during the attempted aggravated robbery and that resistance by the occupants was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the armed intrusion. The court also determined that, although the jury instruction on responsibility for crimes of another was legally inappropriate under State v. Mora, the error did not amount to clear error because the defendant was charged and convicted as a principal, and the evidence established his specific intent. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Palmer " on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer in Jackson County, Kansas, observed a vehicle with a license plate that was slanting to the right and visibly moving, described as "flapping in the wind." The officer initiated a traffic stop based on the belief that the license plate was not securely fastened as required by Kansas law. During the stop, the officer discovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, and an open container of alcohol in the purse of a passenger, who initially provided a false name. The passenger was subsequently charged with several offenses, including possession of methamphetamine and transportation of liquor in an open container.The passenger moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle because the license plate was otherwise legible and visible. The Jackson District Court denied the motion, relying on the officer’s testimony and persuasive federal authority interpreting the relevant Kansas statute. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury convicted the passenger on all counts. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that under K.S.A. 8-133(c), a license plate must be securely fastened to the vehicle, in addition to being visible and legible. The court found that the officer’s observation of the plate hanging askew and moving provided reasonable suspicion of a statutory violation, justifying the traffic stop. The court affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the district court, holding that the stop was lawful and the evidence was properly admitted. View "State v. Yeargin-Charles " on Justia Law